Is there a one-word name for the country of Czechs?
matin
Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
we?
Chris Tessone
matin> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia
matin> and... a "Czech Republic". But we do not have to call
matin> France "French Republic", don't we?
The official name is indeed the "Czech Republic". Ceska Republika is
the name in Czech.
The 2002 CIA World Factbook lists "Czech Republic" as both the long
and short forms of the name:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ez.html
There are shorter forms in other languages---for instance, "Chekhija"
in Russian---but not in English.
Chris
--
Christopher A. Tessone
Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois
BA Student, Russian and Mathematics
http://www.polyglut.net/
benlizross
A Czech friend told me they rejected the obvious name "Czechia" because
it had been used when the country was under Nazi German control (German
Tschechei?).
Ross Clark
Michael Hemmer
> A Czech friend told me they rejected the obvious name "Czechia" because
> it had been used when the country was under Nazi German control (German
> Tschechei?).
"Tschechei" once was a neutral term just as "Slowakei" or other country
or region names ending in -ei. However, since the Nazis derived the term
"Resttschechei" (rest of Czechia) from it, the word nowadays is
considered offensive by many Germans (and certainly by most Czechs) and
thus has been largely superseded by the (somewhat hard to pronounce)
coinage "Tschechien" in informal use. In more formal contexts,
"Tschechische Republik" is exclusively used.
I am, however, surprised to learn that the English name "Czechia" is
considered offensive as well, since it isn't closer to "Tschechei" than
to "Tschechien". After all, the Nazis haven't used the English word,
have they?
Michael
Torsten Poulin
> There are shorter forms in other languages---for instance,
> "Chekhija" in Russian---but not in English.
"Tjekkiet" in Danish.
--
Torsten
Andreas Prilop
> A Czech friend told me they rejected the obvious name "Czechia" because
> it had been used when the country was under Nazi German control (German
> Tschechei?).
This a stupid PC argument. You might equally well reject the name "France"
("Frankreich") because it had been used when the country was under Nazi
German control. And note the word "Reich" in "Frankreich"! Perhaps we are
required to say "Franzien" in the future.
Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
(like "Myanmar").
--
Top posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Chris Tessone
Michael> I am, however, surprised to learn that the English name
Michael> "Czechia" is considered offensive as well, since it isn't
Michael> closer to "Tschechei" than to "Tschechien". After all,
Michael> the Nazis haven't used the English word, have they?
I doubt the Czechs were thinking about the English name at all. They
simply named their country and the English-speaking world never
picked up the habit of using a shorter form like the Russians or
others did.
This situation is nowhere near as ridiculous as the "Ukraine"
vs. "the Ukraine" / "v Ukrainye" vs. "na Ukrainye" situation.
Richard Herring
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
>benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> A Czech friend told me they rejected the obvious name "Czechia" because
>> it had been used when the country was under Nazi German control (German
>> Tschechei?).
>
>This a stupid PC argument. You might equally well reject the name "France"
>("Frankreich") because it had been used when the country was under Nazi
>German control.
But was it used _exclusively_ during that period?
> And note the word "Reich" in "Frankreich"!
All depends _whose_ Reich, doesn't it?
>Perhaps we are
>required to say "Franzien" in the future.
>
>Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
>(like "Myanmar").
Myanma is just one of a number of names by which that country used to be
known by its inhabitants. If they choose to reject the single name which
was used in colonial times, what's the problem? If a less repressive
government had made the same decision, would we be hearing moans about
"political correctness" then?
--
Richard Herring
Andrew Woode
> >>>>> "matin" == matin <matin_l...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> matin> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia
> matin> and... a "Czech Republic". But we do not have to call
> matin> France "French Republic", don't we?
>
> The official name is indeed the "Czech Republic". Ceska Republika is
> the name in Czech.
>
> The 2002 CIA World Factbook lists "Czech Republic" as both the long
> and short forms of the name:
>
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ez.html
>
> There are shorter forms in other languages---for instance, "Chekhija"
> in Russian---but not in English.
>
> Chris
This descibes the usage of most authoritative users in both Czech and
English; but there have been attempts to make the short forms
"Czechia" (in English) and "Cesko" (in Czech, with c-hacek) official:
according to an interesting account at
http://klaudyan.psomart.cz/clanky/jelecek001.asp, official Czech
bodies stated in 1993 that these (along with French Tchéquie, Spanish
Chequia, German Tschechien and the Russian form mentioned above) would
be the official short name of the new state, and the foreign minister
Zielenec referred to "Czechia" in an interview. "Czechia" as a country
name (as opposed to organisations using the form for other purposes)
still seems rare despite this.
I'm rather out of touch with contemporary Czech usage, but my
impression from online media (and a Google search) is that Cesko is
beginning to be used for the country at least sometimes by reasonably
authoritative sources (e.g. by Czech radio at
http://www.rozhlas.cz/izurnal/cesko/), to a greater extent than I
remember from the mid-nineties. Of course many still object to it, in
part because of the confusion with 'Cechy' (Bohemia, the Western part
of the Czech Republic), and the fact that the adjective 'cesky' (hacek
on c, acute on y) has to cover both 'Bohemian' and 'Czech'.
I have to declare an interest as my job requires me very regularly to
type the standard English name of the country (in a system where
pasting a word in is often more time-consuming than typing it in
full). So far I have to accept that "Czech Republic" is the shortest I
can get away with - but I am looking forward to being able to save a
few keystrokes when conventions change!
Andreas Prilop
>> This a stupid PC argument. You might equally well reject the name "France"
>> ("Frankreich") because it had been used when the country was under Nazi
>> German control.
>
> But was it used _exclusively_ during that period?
No. But "Tschechei" only happens to be used during that period because
formerly there was "Tschechoslowakei" (Czechoslovakia) and "Böhmen
und Mähren" (Bohemia? and Moravia?).
>> Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
>> (like "Myanmar").
>
> Myanma is just one of a number of names by which that country used to be
> known by its inhabitants. If they choose to reject the single name which
> was used in colonial times, what's the problem?
They can choose whatever they want in *their* language. I think this
name Myanma[r] was in use long before in *their* language. But they
cannot dictate how to say in English or German. This country is
called "Burma" in English and "Birma" in German; absolutely no
reason to change.
What's next? Must we use "Suomi" instead of "Finland"? Do I require you
to say "Federal Republic of Deutschland"? Of course not.
Prai Jei
news:260220032244045690%nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de...
> What's next? Must we use "Suomi" instead of "Finland"?
Similarly many cities (Helsinki/Helsingfors) and even streets
(Sibeliuksenkatu/Sibeliusgatan).
My homeland is similarly bilingual, but we do not ask the English-speaking
world to say "Cymru" instead of "Wales", "Caerdydd" instead of "Cardiff",
"Heol y Frenhines" instead of "Queen Street".
Prai Jei
news:638e67d0.03022...@posting.google.com...
> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia and... a "Czech
> Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
> we?
Czechland? Czechistan?
Gerard van Wilgen
> Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
> we?
[eng]
Google managed to find about 34,300 web pages in English that contained the
word "Czechia".
[epo]
Google sukcesis trovi proksimume 34.300 retpaghojn en la angla kiuj enhavis
la vorton "Czechia".
Gerard van Wilgen
gvanw...@planet.nl
www.majstro.com (Konciza multlingva tradukvortaro)
matin
Hey! We don't want to have a fight here.
Richard Herring
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
"the Argentine", do you?
--
Richard Herring
Andreas Prilop
> So you still refer to (picking a few at random) "Siam",
No, "Thailand".
> "Rhodesia" and
I think that's completely different from the other examples because
it's derived from the personal name "Cecil Rhodes" and has nothing
to do with the destinction German vs. native designation.
> "the Argentine", do you?
I don't understand this one. We say "Argentinien" in German.
But, for example, I prefer "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka". It allows the
derivatives "Ceylonesen" and "ceylonesisch", which could hardly be
formed from "Sri Lanka". I also prefer "Peking" to "Beijing".
Richard Herring
Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> writes
>Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> So you still refer to (picking a few at random) "Siam",
>
>No, "Thailand".
>
>> "Rhodesia" and
>
>I think that's completely different from the other examples because
>it's derived from the personal name "Cecil Rhodes" and has nothing
>to do with the destinction German vs. native designation.
Nevertheless it illustrates a name change that has been successfully
imposed on the rest of the world. There are plenty of other African
examples that I could have picked.
>
>> "the Argentine", do you?
>
>I don't understand this one.
In English it used to be known as "the Argentine Republic", abbreviated
to "the Argentine".
> We say "Argentinien" in German.
>
>But, for example, I prefer "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka". It allows the
>derivatives "Ceylonesen" and "ceylonesisch", which could hardly be
>formed from "Sri Lanka".
In English you can simply say "Sri Lankan".
--
Richard Herring
phil hunt
>Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>> This a stupid PC argument. You might equally well reject the name "France"
>>> ("Frankreich") because it had been used when the country was under Nazi
>>> German control.
>>
>> But was it used _exclusively_ during that period?
>
>No. But "Tschechei" only happens to be used during that period because
>formerly there was "Tschechoslowakei" (Czechoslovakia) and "Böhmen
>und Mähren" (Bohemia? and Moravia?).
>
>>> Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
>>> (like "Myanmar").
>>
>> Myanma is just one of a number of names by which that country used to be
>> known by its inhabitants. If they choose to reject the single name which
>> was used in colonial times, what's the problem?
>
>They can choose whatever they want in *their* language. I think this
>name Myanma[r] was in use long before in *their* language. But they
>cannot dictate how to say in English or German.
There's a country that says its name, in any langauge, is _Cote
d'Ivoire_. The BBC refers to it as "Ivory Coast".
--
|*|*| Philip Hunt <ph...@cabalamat.org> |*|*|
|*|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
marteno
> >> Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
> >> (like "Myanmar").
>
the names are strange for _you_, supposedly not for them;
and what's theirs is -- the country, isn't it;
and as it is their, i think they know best how to call it;
> called "Burma" in English and "Birma" in German; absolutely no
> reason to change.
you don't see the reason; they do;
> What's next? Must we use "Suomi" instead of "Finland"? Do I require you
> to say "Federal Republic of Deutschland"? Of course not.
if you do, i'll start using it;
btw, in esperanto it is normal to say "Kimrio" for Wales, "Barato" for
India, "Kartvelio" for Georgia... at the beginning (before you get
used
to it) it may seem strange, but it is not; it shows respect to the
land
and to the people;
both "Finnlando" and "Suomio" are used;
but, as for the Ivory Coast, there are two versions "Eburbordo"
(literal
translation) and "Kotdivoro", and i've heard that the locals prefer
the
latter; and that's what counts -- what do the locals prefer;
martin
Andreas Prilop
> the names are strange for _you_, supposedly not for them;
> and what's theirs is -- the country, isn't it;
> and as it is their, i think they know best how to call it;
It is their country - but English and German are not their languages.
Imagine this case:
The German government requires you and all other Slovaks to use
the name "Deutschland" instead of "Nemecko" (sp?) in the _Slovak_
language. What would you call this? Cultural Imperialism? Stupidity?
The word "deutsch" is translated differently into other languages:
allemand, German, nemeckij, saksa, tedesco, tysk ... If all these
languages should adopt "Myanma[r]" instead of "Burma", why not
"Deutschland"? Well, _I_ regard this as a silly idea.
marteno
> This descibes the usage of most authoritative users in both Czech and
> English; but there have been attempts to make the short forms
> "Czechia" (in English) and "Cesko" (in Czech, with c-hacek) official:
> according to an interesting account at
> http://klaudyan.psomart.cz/clanky/jelecek001.asp, official Czech
> bodies stated in 1993 that these (along with French Tchéquie, Spanish
> Chequia, German Tschechien and the Russian form mentioned above) would
> be the official short name of the new state
> I'm rather out of touch with contemporary Czech usage, but my
> impression from online media (and a Google search) is that Cesko is
> beginning to be used for the country at least sometimes by reasonably
> authoritative sources (e.g. by Czech radio at
> http://www.rozhlas.cz/izurnal/cesko/), to a greater extent than I
> remember from the mid-nineties. Of course many still object to it, in
yes; as a slovak resident i can confirm, that "C^esko" both in
Slovakia and Czechia :-) is getting more and more used (and not that
objected to and protested about as it used to be before), but is still
far from being massively used by general public
> part because of the confusion with 'Cechy' (Bohemia, the Western part
> of the Czech Republic), and the fact that the adjective 'cesky' (hacek
> on c, acute on y) has to cover both 'Bohemian' and 'Czech'.
or in the opposite way, as the article by Jelec^ek you've quoted says
-- some (particularly non-Czech) tried to use "C^echy" for the Czech
rep., but this is incorrect, because -- just as you say -- "C^echy" is
a historical land, western part of Czech rep.
that is: Czechia = Bohemia + Moravia
C^esko = C^echy + Morava
(Moravia&Silesia, Morava&Slezsko, to be precise)
i think difference between the words "C^esko" and "C^echy" is
sufficient to make the distinction
> So far I have to accept that "Czech Republic" is the shortest I
> can get away with - but I am looking forward to being able to save a
> few keystrokes when conventions change!
i think it's just that people have to get used to it, and this takes
time
martin
Gerard van Wilgen
news:b30a5b6b.03022...@posting.google.com...
> Andreas Prilop <nhtc...@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote
>
>
> > called "Burma" in English and "Birma" in German; absolutely no
> > reason to change.
>
> you don't see the reason; they do;
La birmanoj ne parolas la anglan au la germanan, do ilia kialo estas
nekoncerna.
> > What's next? Must we use "Suomi" instead of "Finland"? Do I require you
> > to say "Federal Republic of Deutschland"? Of course not.
>
> if you do, i'll start using it;
> btw, in esperanto it is normal to say "Kimrio" for Wales, "Barato" for
> India,
Mi mem preferas "Hindujo" au "Hindio".
> "Kartvelio" for Georgia... at the beginning (before you get
> used
> to it) it may seem strange, but it is not; it shows respect to the
> land
> and to the people;
> both "Finnlando" and "Suomio" are used;
"Finnlando", "Finnujo", "Finnio"; mi opinias ke tri esperantaj nomoj por unu
lando estas sufichega!
> but, as for the Ivory Coast, there are two versions "Eburbordo"
> (literal
> translation) and "Kotdivoro", and i've heard that the locals prefer
> the
> latter; and that's what counts -- what do the locals prefer;
>
Mi tre dubas chu multaj eburbordanoj scipovas la esperanton.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> btw, in esperanto it is normal to say "Kimrio" for Wales, "Barato" for
> India, "Kartvelio" for Georgia... at the beginning (before you get
> used to it) it may seem strange, but it is not; it shows respect to the
> land and to the people;
What's France, Germany, USA, Armenia in Georgian? Are they "respecting"
others?
> translation) and "Kotdivoro", and i've heard that the locals prefer
> the latter;
The locals or the local government?
> and that's what counts -- what do the locals prefer;
No; it's what the speakers of the language prefer!
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * Marwood * The Cucumbers *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * Switchblade Kittens * Pawnshop *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Pierre Jelenc
PJKriha
I don't understand how this worked.
How did the Czechs *reject* the name "Czechia"?
Many different languages use one word names for CR. The speakers
decided they needed one and the language allowed them to create
one. If the English speakers can't manage to come up with one
it's their worries. It's not up to the Czechs to come up with
one for them.
In any case, why is it such an issue anyway?
Czech Republic is 4 syllables long and is quicker to
pronounce than Czechoslovakia which was 7(6?) syllables
long and nobody agonized about it then.
Paul JK
matin
> In any case, why is it such an issue anyway?
> Czech Republic is 4 syllables long and is quicker to
> pronounce than Czechoslovakia which was 7(6?) syllables
> long and nobody agonized about it then.
I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should have a nounal
form for "Czech". "Czech Republic" is a noun phrase, but it includes
the form of government, which is sometimes unnecessary information in
referring to the country of the Czechs. One does not always have to
be this formal.
marteno
> > btw, in esperanto it is normal to say "Kimrio" for Wales, "Barato" for
> > India,
>
> Mi mem preferas "Hindujo" au "Hindio".
i don't, because Hindi is only one of the vast number of nations that
inhabit the country
"lando ne apartenas al tiu aux alia gento, sed plene egalrajte al
cxiuj gxiaj konstantaj logxantoj"
hmmm... though written in 1905, it deserves translating even today: "a
country does not belong to any race/nation, but fully equally to all
its permanent inhabitants"; and when considering such a multiethnical
country as Barato is -- you really can't say which nation does it
"belong to"
> "Finnlando", "Finnujo", "Finnio"; mi opinias ke tri esperantaj nomoj por unu
> lando estas sufichega!
i count them for one name; "Suomi" is the other; and nefiksiteco de
e-aj finajxoj cxe landonomoj does not belong here -- it's another
issue;
other things see below
m.
marteno
> It is their country - but English and German are not their languages.
yea, i think there is something in it, i think i was trying to be too
radical;
as for "Deutschland" vs. "Nemecko" ... if you claimed you really did
mind, i'd try hard to reconsider... but i doubt how you could convince
all my fellow country-men; it'd take time, of course; perhaps you know
"Nemec" means "a mute" originally (not my lang => not a lang) it was
back in those times, when old Slavs did not understand a bit of
German; today they do, German is learnt and respected in our countries
and when we refer to "Nemec", "nemecky'", "Nemecko" -- guaranteedly
nobody (99.9% ever) thinks of any muteness; that's what we call "loss
of semantic motivation"
Pierre:
> No; it's what the speakers of the language prefer!
of course you may do/say what do you prefer, but what i prefer, is to
care also about what other people prefer
that is: it's not question of posession or might; it's that i'm ready
to admit that those who live there just _must_ know better how to call
it :-)
> La birmanoj ne parolas la anglan au la germanan, do ilia kialo estas
> nekoncerna.
Andreas Prilop:
> It is their country - but English and German are not their languages.
whose is English/German? if they are considered as national languages,
of course not; but as they are used as means of _international_
communication, then the matter is quite different;
for an international language with an international community of
speakers as Esperanto is quite natural to regard these issues, because
the inhabitants of the country in question are equal members of the
community of speakers, and everybody is ready to (and considers is
normal) respect members of other cultures
but i do admit that with national languages as Slovak, it would be
quite hard to change e.g. Nemecko to, say, "Dojc^land"
> > translation) and "Kotdivoro", and i've heard that the locals prefer
> > the latter;
>
> The locals or the local government?
> Mi tre dubas chu multaj eburbordanoj scipovas la esperanton.
honestly i don't know and don't remember where have heard of that
preference;
but i guess the Kotdivorian esperantists not to be members of their
government
m.
Peter T. Daniels
You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the same country as
Dominica, you know.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
marteno
>
> In any case, why is it such an issue anyway?
> Czech Republic is 4 syllables long and is quicker to
> pronounce than Czechoslovakia which was 7(6?) syllables
> long and nobody agonized about it then.
Czecho-Slovakia consists of two words/proper names of 2 nations
that's why it has to be that long :-)
m.
matin
> matin wrote:
> >
> > I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should have a nounal
> > form for "Czech". "Czech Republic" is a noun phrase, but it includes
> > the form of government, which is sometimes unnecessary information in
> > referring to the country of the Czechs. One does not always have to
> > be this formal.
>
> You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the same country as
> Dominica, you know.
The two contries are Commonwealth of Dominica ("Dominica" is the short
form) and República Dominicana (no short form). But... we don't have
a Czech Commonwealth, do we?
I remember the other day I was watching David Letterman. The guest
was a gorgeous Czech model. I think her name was Nemcova. She spoke
almost impeccable English. Although nothing was terribly funny in
what she said, but people laughed anyway... It is always pleasant to
see a pretty and smart young lady, you know... Then I noticed she
referred to her home country as "Czech". No "Republic"! Of course
nobody cared. Who cares whether such a nice girl makes grammatical
mistakes! But... She really did not know the correct English name
for her country? I don't think so. Maybe she just dropped "Republic"
since she knew people came just for laughing, and if there was any
politics, laughing it off? Would it be nicer if she could drop
"Republic" without incurring a grammatical error?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia and... a "Czech
> Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
> we?
Not without a numeral before it, since there have been several French
Republics.
PJKriha
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3E600...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > matin wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should have a nounal
> > > form for "Czech". "Czech Republic" is a noun phrase, but it includes
> > > the form of government, which is sometimes unnecessary information in
> > > referring to the country of the Czechs. One does not always have to
> > > be this formal.
When you refer to 'land' in Poland, Deutschland, or Russland are you
also being formal? If not, why not?
> > You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the same country as
> > Dominica, you know.
Good point.
> The two contries are Commonwealth of Dominica ("Dominica" is the short
> form) and República Dominicana (no short form). But... we don't have
> a Czech Commonwealth, do we?
No in case of CR it's not called Commonwealth, it's called Republic.
Czech Republic = C^echy + Morava + Slezko (ie. Bohemia + Moravia + Cz.Silezia)
> I remember the other day I was watching David Letterman. The guest
> was a gorgeous Czech model. I think her name was Nemcova. She spoke
> almost impeccable English. Although nothing was terribly funny in
> what she said, but people laughed anyway... It is always pleasant to
> see a pretty and smart young lady, you know... Then I noticed she
> referred to her home country as "Czech". No "Republic"! Of course
> nobody cared. Who cares whether such a nice girl makes grammatical
> mistakes!
What makes you think she was making a grammatical mistake?
Are you sure she was refering to Czech *Republic*? :-)
PJK.
matin
> matin_l...@hotmail.com (matin) wrote in message news:<638e67d0.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3E600...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > > matin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should have a nounal
> > > > form for "Czech". "Czech Republic" is a noun phrase, but it includes
> > > > the form of government, which is sometimes unnecessary information in
> > > > referring to the country of the Czechs. One does not always have to
> > > > be this formal.
>
> When you refer to 'land' in Poland, Deutschland, or Russland are you
> also being formal? If not, why not?
No. Because no form of government is involved in "Deutschland" or
"Poland".
>
> > > You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the same country as
> > > Dominica, you know.
>
> Good point.
>
> > The two contries are Commonwealth of Dominica ("Dominica" is the short
> > form) and República Dominicana (no short form). But... we don't have
> > a Czech Commonwealth, do we?
>
> No in case of CR it's not called Commonwealth, it's called Republic.
> Czech Republic = C^echy + Morava + Slezko (ie. Bohemia + Moravia + Cz.Silezia)
You did not get my point. Maybe I was not vey clear. The point was:
If there were no Commonwealth of Dominica, people probably would call
the Dominican Republic as "Dominica".
>
> > I remember the other day I was watching David Letterman. The guest
> > was a gorgeous Czech model. I think her name was Nemcova. She spoke
> > almost impeccable English. Although nothing was terribly funny in
> > what she said, but people laughed anyway... It is always pleasant to
> > see a pretty and smart young lady, you know... Then I noticed she
> > referred to her home country as "Czech". No "Republic"! Of course
> > nobody cared. Who cares whether such a nice girl makes grammatical
> > mistakes!
>
> What makes you think she was making a grammatical mistake?
> Are you sure she was refering to Czech *Republic*? :-)
>
I am certain she used "Czech" as a country name, not as a language
name.
António Pedro Marques
>>>>Political correctness tries to impose silly and strange names on use
>>>>(like "Myanmar").
>>
>>They can choose whatever they want in *their* language. I think this
>
> the names are strange for _you_, supposedly not for them;
> and what's theirs is -- the country, isn't it;
> and as it is their, i think they know best how to call it;
'Burma' is how the native word appeared in English, and no Burmese
government has any right to impose 'Myanmar' to any English speaker, the
more so since the original word has no r!
> btw, in esperanto it is normal to say "Kimrio" for Wales, "Barato" for
> India, "Kartvelio" for Georgia... at the beginning (before you get
> used
> to it) it may seem strange, but it is not; it shows respect to the
> land
> and to the people;
No, it means that Esperanto is an artificial communication tool which
obviously belongs to no one and as such it may as well get along with
whatever the natives prefer.
--
António Pedro Marques . http://enseada.planetaclix.pt
Andrew Woode
> > matin wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should have a nounal
> > > form for "Czech". "Czech Republic" is a noun phrase, but it includes
> > > the form of government, which is sometimes unnecessary information in
> > > referring to the country of the Czechs. One does not always have to
> > > be this formal.
often wants to talk about the territory of a modern state at some
period in the past, even if it was not independent or unified at that
point. With most countries that is easy enough: 'Medieval Wales'
'eighteenth-century France'; but 'the medieval Czech Republic'?! You
can obviously find other phrases 'Kingdom of Bohemia', 'lands of the
Czech crown' etc for the relevant historical periods, but nothing that
links past to present simply. To be able to say 'Medieval Czechia'
would have its uses.
>
> I remember the other day I was watching David Letterman. The guest
> was a gorgeous Czech model. I think her name was Nemcova. She spoke
> almost impeccable English. Although nothing was terribly funny in
> what she said, but people laughed anyway... It is always pleasant to
> see a pretty and smart young lady, you know... Then I noticed she
> referred to her home country as "Czech". No "Republic"! Of course
> nobody cared. Who cares whether such a nice girl makes grammatical
> mistakes! But... She really did not know the correct English name
> for her country? I don't think so. Maybe she just dropped "Republic"
> since she knew people came just for laughing, and if there was any
> politics, laughing it off? Would it be nicer if she could drop
> "Republic" without incurring a grammatical error?
'Czech'on its own was standard usage among some American residents of
the country in question in 95-6. Perhaps the lady in question has been
talking to them?
Incidentally I remember a humorous article in one Czech newspaper some
years ago about finding a one-word name for the country. Among many
other silly suggestions was naming it after another Nemcova (Bozena,
I'm afraid - the writer); I forget the precise suffix used. Lovely
potential for confusion with 'Nemecko' (Germany), as they pointed out!
Andreas Prilop
> Incidentally I remember a humorous article in one Czech newspaper some
> years ago about finding a one-word name for the country. Among many
> other silly suggestions was naming it after another Nemcova (Bozena,
> I'm afraid - the writer); I forget the precise suffix used. Lovely
> potential for confusion with 'Nemecko' (Germany), as they pointed out!
Even presidents tumble over Slovakia/Slovenia.
--
Will the turkey become freedom fowl?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> kri...@actrix.co.nz (PJKriha) wrote in message news:<ffc54163.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > matin_l...@hotmail.com (matin) wrote in message news:<638e67d0.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<
> > > > You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the same country as
> > > > Dominica, you know.
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > > The two contries are Commonwealth of Dominica ("Dominica" is the short
> > > form) and República Dominicana (no short form). But... we don't have
> > > a Czech Commonwealth, do we?
> >
> > No in case of CR it's not called Commonwealth, it's called Republic.
> > Czech Republic = C^echy + Morava + Slezko (ie. Bohemia + Moravia + Cz.Silezia)
>
> You did not get my point. Maybe I was not vey clear. The point was:
> If there were no Commonwealth of Dominica, people probably would call
> the Dominican Republic as "Dominica".
Nope. The Dominican Republic existed long before Dominica (as a
country).
M. Ranjit Mathews
> marteno wrote:
> 'Burma' is how the native word appeared in English, and no Burmese
> government has any right to impose 'Myanmar' to any English speaker, the
> more so since the original word has no r!
Burma was (at one time) only one part of what is now called Myanmar. Are
Arakanese, Peguans, Tennaserimese and Karens Burmans?
matin
I do not know much about the history of that part of the world, but I
think it would be helpful if we know who were the first to use
"Dominica" as the name of their territory. Who gained the sovereignty
first is irrelevant here.
Peter T. Daniels
Columbus founded the city of Santo Domingo in 1492 -- you can't get
named with a Christian name any earlier than that.
John Atkinson
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> marteno wrote:
No, they're not Burmans, but they are Burmese. Though many of them would
prefer not to be.
John.
matin
Some useful information:
History of the Commonwealth of Dominica:
http://www.skyviews.com/dominica/history.html
"...Columbus was the first European to set eyes on Dominica on 3rd
November, 1493 - it was a Sunday - so he named it after the day..."
____________________________________________________________
History of the Dominican Republic:
http://www.hispaniola.com/DR/Guides/History.html
"...Just before their departure, during the night of Christmas Eve
1492, after returning from 2 days of partying with their Indian hosts,
Columbus' flagship, the Santa Maria, ran afoul on a reef and was
wrecked a few miles east of present-day Cap Haïtien after the crew all
fell asleep. Although with the help of the Indians they were able to
salvage all the valuables, the ship was lost. So Columbus was obliged
to found a small settlement that he named Navidad, and left behind a
small group of 39 Spaniards when he departed for Spain.
"Within a short time of his departure, these settlers began fighting
among themselves, with some of them getting killed. They also offended
the natives by forcibly taking 3 or 4 of their wives or sisters each,
and forcing them to work as their servants. After several months of
these abuses, a tribal chief named Caonabo attacked the settlement and
killed the remaining Spaniards. So when Columbus returned to the
island the next spring with a large expedition, he and the Spaniards
were shocked to find that the settlement they had left behind was
empty and had been burned to the ground.
"The first permanent European settlement was founded in 1493 at
Isabella, on the north coast of the island not far east of Puerto
Plata..."
"...Bartholomew Columbus was appointed governor while his brother
Christopher continued his explorations in the Caribbean region, and
after the discovery of gold in the Ozama river valley in the south,
founded the city of Santo Domingo in 1496..."
It seems that the Spanish colony was called Santo Domingo, until
"independence of the eastern side of the island was officially
declared on February 27, 1844, and the name of Dominican Republic was
adopted."
matin
>
> Even presidents tumble over Slovakia/Slovenia.
Are these two names etymologically related?
Lee Sau Dan
matin> I would say this is a linguistic issue. English should
matin> have a nounal form for "Czech".
I have a Czech friend who usually tells people he's from "Czechia"
(pronounced as "checkia") when speaking English. I myself say simply
"Czech" (pronounced like "check", but usually the /k/ is replaced with
a German/Scottish "ch").
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
marteno> kri...@actrix.co.nz (PJKriha) wrote
>> In any case, why is it such an issue anyway? Czech Republic
>> is 4 syllables long and is quicker to pronounce than
>> Czechoslovakia which was 7(6?) syllables long and nobody
>> agonized about it then.
7? How can you count 7 syllables out of that?
BTW, Czechoslovakia no longer exists. It split up into Czech Republic
and Slovakia around 10 years ago (in 1993?). They're now 2 separate
countries.
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the
Peter> same country as Dominica, you know.
Where is the latter?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> You have a problem with Dominican Republic? It's not the
> Peter> same country as Dominica, you know.
>
> Where is the latter?
Lesser Antilles.
Michel Desfayes
Recently we have witnessed the renaming of some countries like Dahomey
becoming Benin, Congo = Zaire (now back to Republic of Congo !), Ceylon
= Sri Lanka, Burma = Myanmar of which it is a corruption). There still
is an obvious reticence in calling Burma "Myanmar". Sri Lanka on the
other hand has been readily and promptly accepted, although there is
some difficulty for a Westerner in pronouncing Sri. I regret the
forsaking of Ceylon. Couldn't we have conserved it ? After all the
Germans are by no means disturbed if Deutschland is called Germany by
the English, Allemagne by the French, Niemcy by the Poles or Tyskland by
the Danes. The Magyars do not seem to mind being called Hungarians, the
Hellens Greeks, and the Netherlanders Dutch (and their country Holland).
Shqipetars are quite happy beeing called Albanians and the Kartvelebi
Georgians, and their country Sakartvelo. Cerna Gora is universally known
as Montenegro, Bha-rat is called by the Westerners India, Suomi >
Finland, Misr = Egypt, Zhon Guo = China. The Greeks call France Gallika
and Switzerland Helvetia; this latter name has even been adopted by
Switzerland, on postage stamps for instance, in order to avoid spelling
out its four other official names of Schweiz, Suisse, Svizra and
Svizzera; Switzerland's official "all-in-one" Latin name is
Confoederatio Helvetica (CH).
Michel Desfayes
Ron Hardin
to prove that our kids don't know geography.
What was it before it was Dahomey? Perhaps I've heard of it.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Automort
>
>What was it before it was Dahomey? Perhaps I've heard of it.
Benin.
Dik T. Winter
> the Netherlanders Dutch (and their country Holland).
Wrong. There are quite a few Dutch who object to their country being
called Holland. Mostly from the ten provinces that are neither
North-Holland nor South-Holland. But they are practical and allow
the abuse (while internally seething).
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Guillaume Toussaint
news:20030306150206...@mb-fq.aol.com
> >From: Ron Hardin rhha...@mindspring.com
>
> >
> >What was it before it was Dahomey? Perhaps I've heard of it.
>
> Benin.
Not exactly, the country is born as a french colony called Dahomey, from
the name of a historic kingdom located there. The kingdom of Benin was
approximatively in current Nigeria (and partly in Benin), but is much
more famous.
Guillaume
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Charles A. Burge
I didn't know it had ever been Dahomey. I remember seeing Benin in my world
atlas in the early 1980's...
Charles
P.S. The O.P. left out Upper Volta --> Burkina Faso (and probably others).
Andreas Prilop
> There are quite a few Dutch who object to their country being
> called Holland. Mostly from the ten provinces that are neither
> North-Holland nor South-Holland. But they are practical and allow
> the abuse (while internally seething).
You mean the football fans screaming "Hup Nederland"? ;-)
--
Top posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
mb
<3E679590...@omedia.ch>...
...
> I regret the
> forsaking of Ceylon. Couldn't we have conserved it ? After all the
> Germans are by no means disturbed if Deutschland is called Germany by
> the English, Allemagne by the French, Niemcy by the Poles or Tyskland by
What do you mean, couldn't "we" have conserved it? Anyone with a
minimum of historical consciousness, if not employed by some
government agency or living under dictatorship remains free to ignore
the arrant nonsense of politician-initiated ignorant renamings. Those
who follow the principle that any innovation automatically becomes the
new standard are also free to change their own usage every now and
then.
M. Ranjit Mathews
>>forsaking of Ceylon. Couldn't we have conserved it ?
[silOn] is a mispronunciation; it is [sejl@n] in Tamil, pronounced like
"say len".
> After all the
>>Germans are by no means disturbed if Deutschland is called Germany by
>>the English, Allemagne by the French, Niemcy by the Poles or Tyskland by
Germany too doesn't preserve the original pronunciation since comes from
Germanii, which had a hard g like in Gertrude, not a palatalized one
like in "gender".
marteno
> Michel Desfayes <mdes...@omedia.ch> wrote
>
> > I regret the
> > forsaking of Ceylon. Couldn't we have conserved it ?
>
> What do you mean, couldn't "we" have conserved it? Anyone with a
> minimum of historical consciousness,
...
> remains free to ignore the arrant nonsense of politician-initiated
> ignorant renamings.
yes; i elect follow the rule, that it's not politicians of any
country,
but people of the country in concern, who 'knows best' how to call it;
i think i've mentioned lately in another thread that in esperanto
we normally say "Kartvelio", "Kimrio", "Nederlando", "Barato" (the
last one not generally accepted by everyone)
... *BUT* we do say "Germanio" (pronounced "g" like in english
"gap"), "Hungario";
> Those
> who follow the principle that any innovation automatically becomes the
> new standard are also free to change their own usage every now and
> then.
inversely: because they change their own usage, they think the other
people do so, too :-) we need both stability and unstability in the
language
Dik T. Winter
> "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> > There are quite a few Dutch who object to their country being
> > called Holland. Mostly from the ten provinces that are neither
> > North-Holland nor South-Holland. But they are practical and allow
> > the abuse (while internally seething).
>
> You mean the football fans screaming "Hup Nederland"? ;-)
Yup. The term "Hup, Holland, Hup" comes from a song written in (I think)
the 30s. By (you guess it) people from the Hollands. So the abuse is
allowed. But ask somebody from Frisia whether he lives in Holland and
he will vehemently deny it (unless he is practical).
The use of Holland for the Netherlands is similar to the use of England
for the United Kingdom.
mb
<b30a5b6b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
...
> in esperanto
> we normally say "Kartvelio", "Kimrio", "Nederlando", "Barato" (the
> last one not generally accepted by everyone)
Fat chance any country could still be barato in our time and age.
Anyway, we weren't talking about conlangs. When you have a blank slate
you can afford to be politically correct (or incorrect) at will,
without doing violence to a tradition.
Wiktor Sywula
> -- some (particularly non-Czech) tried to use "C^echy" for the Czech
> rep., but this is incorrect, because -- just as you say -- "C^echy" is
> a historical land, western part of Czech rep.
In Polish, the official name is Republika Czeska, but we usually say just
Czechy.
--
Azarien
António Pedro Marques
>> 'Burma' is how the native word appeared in English, and no Burmese
>> government has any right to impose 'Myanmar' to any English speaker,
>> the more so since the original word has no r!
>
> Burma was (at one time) only one part of what is now called Myanmar. Are
> Arakanese, Peguans, Tennaserimese and Karens Burmans?
As much as 'myanmarans'. Burma and 'Myanmar' have the same origin. As
you know. Or are you suggesting that 'Myanmar' should be to Burma as
hispanic is to spanish?
--
António Pedro Marques . http://enseada.planetaclix.pt
Michael Farris
> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia and... a "Czech
> Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
> we?
My very inelegant usage is:
the Czech Republic (formal)
Czech (informal)
as in.
I haven't been much in Czech, just Prague.
They went to Czech to go skiing.
I'm not crazy about it but I've heard others use it as well.
If I saw/heard more people using Czechia I would too, but til then ...
-michael farris
M. Ranjit Mathews
"Myanmarese" and "Burmese" don't have the same connotations any more.
That Myanmar or Bharat meant something else in the past is only of
historical interest. Now, Burmans or Burmese are one of many
ethnicities and Myanmarese are all of them put together.
Full country name: Union of Myanmar (Burma became Myanmar in 1989
after the State Law and Order Restoration Council decided that the old
name implied the dominance of Burmese culture; the Burmese are just
one of the many ethnic groups in the country)
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, had many names; once Suvanabhomi
(Golden Land), later as Amarapura (Land of Immortality), and also as
Yadanarbon (Land of Gems). You have to find out why. Besides,
international scientists recently rewrote history that Pondaung in
Myanmar is the earliest home of mankind. Myanmar is as large as twice
the size of Germany. Its 135 ethnic groups add up to a population of
48 million.
http://www.myanmars.net/
M. Ranjit Mathews
> But, for example, I prefer "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka".
The correct (i.e., original) pronunciation is [se:jl@n].
> It allows the
> derivatives "Ceylonesen" and "ceylonesisch", which could hardly be
> formed from "Sri Lanka". I also prefer "Peking" to "Beijing".
>
tandp
Michael Farris schrieb:
I'm glad to know other English speakers have the same problem.
In German, it's Tschechien, so in analogy to Rumänien, Jugoslavien etc.
it would be Czechia in English.
Next question: why is it Belgium and not Belgia?
Tom
John Atkinson
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> António Pedro Marques <m....@clix.pt> wrote ...
> > M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
> >
> > > Someone wrote:
> > >> 'Burma' is how the native word appeared in English, and no Burmese
> > >> government has any right to impose 'Myanmar' to any English speaker,
> > >> the more so since the original word has no r!
> > >
> > > Burma was (at one time) only one part of what is now called Myanmar.
Are
> > > Arakanese, Peguans, Tennaserimese and Karens Burmans?
> >
> > As much as 'myanmarans'. Burma and 'Myanmar' have the same origin. As
> > you know. Or are you suggesting that 'Myanmar' should be to Burma as
> > hispanic is to spanish?
>
> "Myanmarese" and "Burmese" don't have the same connotations any more.
> That Myanmar or Bharat meant something else in the past is only of
> historical interest. Now, Burmans or Burmese are one of many
> ethnicities and Myanmarese are all of them put together.
Those of us (including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) who still use "Burma" for the
name of the country when speaking English would consider "Burmese" to be the
word for citizens of the country, of any ethnicity. However, "Burman" seems
to be widely used to denote the dominant ethnic group (including by me).
This seems to be a very convenient distinction, especially considering the
situation in the country ever since the British left in 1948 (with the
Burmese army, consisting mostly of Burmans, carrying out ethnic cleansing
against the non-Burman Burmese and settling Burmans on their land, and with
several non-Burman groups seeking independence from Burma, in some cases by
military means).
Of course, "Burmese" is used by all English speakers (including those who
use "Myanmar" and "Myanmarese" for the country and its citizens) for the
language of the Burmans, which I suppose is fair enough, just as "Spanish"
is used for the language of the Hispanics.
Here in Australia, there was a period when "Myanmar" was pretty widely
adopted, but now most people (including the media and official sources) use
"Burma" I think. What is the situation in the USA and Britain? I
understand that the US government has stuck with "Burma".
Google gives 1 450 000 hits for "Burma", 3 210 000 for "Myanmar"; of these,
500 000 contain both. "Myanma" has 15 000, many of them official sites or
news bulletins.
John.
Il Granduca
"Michel Desfayes" <mdes...@omedia.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3E679590...@omedia.ch...
> Recently we have witnessed the renaming of some countries like Dahomey
> becoming Benin, Congo = Zaire (now back to Republic of Congo !)
"Congo" is the name of two countries :
1) the one with Brazzaville as capital city;
2) the one with Kinshasa as capital city
But is it legal to have one name for two different countries?
>Burma = Myanmar of which it is a corruption
I'm not an expert of those languages. Are you saying that both "Myanmar" and
"Burma" have the same origin (in other words: it is the same name spelt
differently)?
> although there is
> some difficulty for a Westerner in pronouncing Sri.
Not for Italians. We have words such has "sradicare" (= to eradicate),
"sregolato" (= disordered) and so on. However they are all pronounced with
/zr/ rather than /sr/. The first consonant has a special status (it is not a
syllabical one but it does neither belong to the first syllable).
>I regret the forsaking of Ceylon.
In Italian maps you will usually find "Ceylon" for the island and "Sri
Lanka" for the political entity. Just like "Formosa" and "Taiwan".
> After all the
> Germans are by no means disturbed if Deutschland is called Germany by
> the English, Allemagne by the French, Niemcy by the Poles or Tyskland by
> the Danes. The Magyars do not seem to mind being called Hungarians, the
> Hellens Greeks,
I know in Classical Greek "Graikós" was the name of some people, but which
one? The Hellens? A part of the Hellenic people?
> and the Netherlanders Dutch (and their country Holland).
> Shqipetars are quite happy beeing called Albanians
"Albanian(s)" comes from "arbėresh", an alternative Albanian name for the
Shqipetars.
>and the Kartvelebi
> Georgians, and their country Sakartvelo.
Also "Hayastan" = "Armenia"
>Cerna Gora
"Crna Gora"
> is universally known
> as Montenegro,
...because of Venetian domination. Monte Negro = Black Mountain = Crna Gora.
> Bha-rat is called by the Westerners India, Suomi >
> Finland, Misr = Egypt,
>Zhon Guo = China.
The name "China" comes from a Japanese name, doesn't it?
> The Greeks call France Gallika
This is the same thing of "Germania" ~ "Deutschland".
We Italians should call it "Tedeschia" o "Alemagna", but the Classical Latin
words prevailed.
Besides, also "Italia" is not a popular name: according to the evolution of
Latin language, for the palatalization rule, it should have been "Itaglia"
(like Hispania -> Spagna, Sardinia Sardegna). The word "Itaglia" (and
"itagliani") exists in a derogative way, since uneducated people pronounce
it in a similar way.
Regards,
PM from Tuscany, Italy, EU
Tommi Ojanperä
<paolox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Congo" is the name of two countries :
>1) the one with Brazzaville as capital city;
>2) the one with Kinshasa as capital city
>But is it legal to have one name for two different countries?
The official name of a country is rarely the same as the one used
in less official contexts. Compare:
Republic of Korea (a.k.a. South Korea)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a.k.a. North Korea)
People's Republic of China
Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan)
Democratic Republic of Congo
Republic of Congo
As for issues of legality, I don't know. International law is not
something that has been universally accepted anyway. In any case, it's
not very likely that two countries want to adopt the exact same
official name, as you can see from the above examples.
>>Burma = Myanmar of which it is a corruption
>I'm not an expert of those languages. Are you saying that both "Myanmar" and
>"Burma" have the same origin (in other words: it is the same name spelt
>differently)?
The area had been known for centuries as Myanma (in the Burmese
langauge). During the Japanese occupation, the name Bama was adopted
by Burmese nationalists. After the war, inside the country the name
Myanma was again silently reintroduced.
Some people feel that Bama only encompasses the Burmese ethnic group,
while Myanma encompasses all the ethnic minorities as well
(Mon, Karen, Chin, Palaung, etc.) Other people say the exact opposite
is true.
In any case, in spring 1989 the English name Myanmar was officially
adopted by the Burmese government. At the same time, new English
spellings of some placenames were also adopted at an official level:
Rangoon became Yangon, Moulmein became Mawlamyine, etc.
Some claim these most recent name changes of names mainly reflect Ne
Win's personal beliefs: according to Burmese tradition, the changing
of names is thought to bring good fortune and drive away evil spirits.
>>Zhon Guo = China.
Zhongguo.
>The name "China" comes from a Japanese name, doesn't it?
It does not: the Japanese name of China is Chuugoku. The word China is
derived from the Qin (i.e. Ch'in) dynasty (221-206 B.C.E.).
The name "Japan", on the other hand, does come from Chinese (Mandarin
"Riben", Cantonese "Yatbun").
Tommi Antero Ojanpera <to...@cc.jyu.fi>
Jyvaskyla, FINLAND <www.jyu.fi/~tojan>
SEGNIVS HOMINES BONA QVAM MALA SENTIRE
- TITVS LIVIVS
Yusuf B Gursey
: "Automort" <auto...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20030306150206...@mb-fq.aol.com
:> >From: Ron Hardin rhha...@mindspring.com
:>
:> >
:> >What was it before it was Dahomey? Perhaps I've heard of it.
:>
:> Benin.
: Not exactly, the country is born as a french colony called Dahomey, from
later they changed it to Benin (unless thee was arecent political
development leading to a new name change.
: the name of a historic kingdom located there. The kingdom of Benin was
Mike Girouard
I brought this subject up a year ago and was roundly piloried for my
views. I frankly have no idea why people who are not native to a
country/city can't at least try to pronounce the place name the same
way the "locals" do.
Obviously there are times when the native language version may be
practically unpronounceable to foreigners. (I'm not about to start
practicing "click language" for anybody.) But, those instances aside,
why do other languages feel they have a right to change someone else's
heritage just because they are too lazy/ignorant to get it correct?
Certainly a lot of harm was done during the days of conquest and then
colonialization. "It's our country now so let's pronounce things our
way and rename a lot of places after our own royalty." And now that
some of these formerly colonialized countries want to regain their
heritage there are complaints! Sorry, complainers, but it was Mumbai
before it was Bombay, Beijing (or closer to) than Peking, etc. And I
can say Suomi just as easily as Finland, Deutschland as Germany. And
if a newly independant Burma thinks that Myanmar is ethnically
preferable - that's their business and we should accept their wishes.
FoggyTown
Abbel Mihkel
>
>
> I brought this subject up a year ago and was roundly piloried for my
> views. I frankly have no idea why people who are not native to a
> country/city can't at least try to pronounce the place name the same
> way the "locals" do.
>
Locals speak local. We speak us.
> Obviously there are times when the native language version may be
> practically unpronounceable to foreigners. (I'm not about to start
> practicing "click language" for anybody.) But, those instances aside,
There are far too many of these instances.
> why do other languages feel they have a right to change someone else's
> heritage just because they are too lazy/ignorant to get it correct?
>
This idea is totally wrong. When I pronounce the name of Germany (in
fact, Deutschland) "Saksa", try to prove I'm changing their heritage. I
think Germans couldn't care less, because they simply are not familiar
with my language.
> Certainly a lot of harm was done during the days of conquest and then
> colonialization. "It's our country now so let's pronounce things our
> way and rename a lot of places after our own royalty."
Now this is a completely different matter, isn't it? There really is a
difference, whether I'm saying "Saksa" while sitting in my home with no
Germans around or forcing Germans to say "Saksa" instead of "Deutschland".
> And now that
> some of these formerly colonialized countries want to regain their
> heritage there are complaints! Sorry, complainers, but it was Mumbai
> before it was Bombay, Beijing (or closer to) than Peking, etc. And I
> can say Suomi just as easily as Finland, Deutschland as Germany. And
> if a newly independant Burma thinks that Myanmar is ethnically
> preferable - that's their business and we should accept their wishes.
>
Being able to speak several languages is good, but mixing them all up
from every kind of local pronunciation variations into only one
all-the-world politically correct way of pronunciation is as bad as you
can get. If it is required to pronounce names (I mean any names, not
only place-names) the way locals do, it's obviously a distress to every
language from every other language. Each language will have to adopt all
the sounds and sound clusters of every other language. Unthinkable.
Better let children learn their own language properly and let them stick
to it.
There are quite many names whose "correct" or local pronunciation is
hard to get or absolutely unobtainable. For example: Toyota Corolla in
Japanese?
Mihkel
Henry Polard
fogg...@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:
<snip>
Yeah - I love the cuisine of Magyaroszag, Ellas, and Bharat, but not
that of Shqipera, Belgique er I mean Belgie, that of Suomi oh it's
Finland, too, nor that of Der Schweiz erm La Suisse I mean umm la
Svizzera oh dammit Confeoderatio Helvetica but I can't get the Latin
case right so the heck with it.
Xhosa music is great!
Henry Polard || San Francisco de kimashita.
Jacques Guy
> Mike Girouard wrote:
> > why do other languages feel they have a right to change someone else's
> > heritage just because they are too lazy/ignorant to get it correct?
Not because there are too lazy or ignorant (notice how you've answered
your own question before waiting for answers), but because all too
many of their speakers have reverted to magical behaviours (as my
philosophy teacher in high school called it): the irrational
belief that names affect what they name. Precisely like sorcerers,
magicians, and so on, claim that knowing the true name of a person,
or of an object, gives you power over that person or that object.
Further, the wording of your question shows that you have no idea
of what you are talking about, or have, and dishonestly use a bogus
question to argue your case. Viz.: "why do other languages feel they
have a right..". That should be "why do other languages...". Next
"to change someone else's heritage". That should be "change
some other language's pronunciation of its proper names." Finally:
"just because they are too lazy/ignorant to get it correct?"
That makes your question is humbug through and through, hardly
better camouflaged than the famous "When did you stop beating your
wife?"
And to paraphrase Abbel Mihkel who wrote clearly and to the point:
> This idea is totally wrong. When I pronounce the name of Germany (in
> fact, Deutschland) "Saksa", try to prove I'm changing their heritage. I
> think Germans couldn't care less, because they simply are not familiar
> with my language.
I ask again: when I pronounce the name "Armenian" (in fact, "Hai")
how am I changing the Armenian heritage? Armenians are hardly
unfamiliar with other languages either. Perhaps they know that one's
heritage does not lie in mere names, and that those for whom it
does have none beyond crass superstition.
And when I say "Londres" (in fact "London") I am changing that
city and its heritage? Just because I am too lazy or ignorant to
get it correct (sic)? You are full of it.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Recently we have witnessed the renaming of some countries like Dahomey
> becoming Benin, Congo = Zaire (now back to Republic of Congo !), Ceylon
It's the Democratic Republic of the Congo (unless a very recent
change). it was IIRC Republic of Congo, but the Republic of the Congo
is Congo - Brazaville.
Egypt became a constituent of the United Arab Republic and the name
remained in the 60's after the union (with Syria) disolved. it then
reverted Egypt.
the "long form" (formal name) of arab countries change frequently with
regime or policy. Iraq was one of the most stable after the republic,
but it recently changed its formal name in arabic from "the Iraqi
Republic" to "the Republic of Iraq" (literal translations) but it has
always been "the Republic of Iraq" in english. in the short form,
syria is officially su:riya(t) (with ta' marbuTa unlike other -ia's
with -iy(y)a: which end in alif, but outside syria alif is used
frequently by journalists (I think because of the late ottoman
province of
su^riye and early renditions in arabic with -a(t) ).
the ones below are examples of changes in the english name rather than
in the native name.
> = Sri Lanka, Burma = Myanmar of which it is a corruption). There still
in the native language, based on two different registers of the
language.
> is an obvious reticence in calling Burma "Myanmar". Sri Lanka on the
> other hand has been readily and promptly accepted, although there is
> some difficulty for a Westerner in pronouncing Sri. I regret the
> forsaking of Ceylon. Couldn't we have conserved it ? After all the
> Germans are by no means disturbed if Deutschland is called Germany by
the UN russian standard is Germanija , although nemets- for "german".
arabic has nimsa: for austria (from older ottoman turkish nem*ch*e for
the Holy Roman Empire)
> the English, Allemagne by the French, Niemcy by the Poles or Tyskland by
> the Danes. The Magyars do not seem to mind being called Hungarians, the
"magyar" is what the finno-ugric speaking population always called
itself. "Hungar(ian)" is the bulgharo-turkic (on o*gh*ur - "ten
oghur") name of the larger confederation in which a few
bulgharo-turkic tribes were the ruling ones (incl. the Arpad clan).
atrabic, with both al-majar and hun*gh*a:riya: has adopted the second
for the UN standard. russian Vengrija reflects tendencies of the
pronoucniation of << on o*gh*ur >> in bulgharo-turkic (chuvash << van
>> for << on >>
> Hellens Greeks, and the Netherlanders Dutch (and their country Holland).
now, "the formal name" is "the Hellenic Republic" and "the short name"
(for purposes of alphabetizations and similar usage) is "Greece" in
english. no change in the native name (other than the declaration of a
republic).
> Shqipetars are quite happy beeing called Albanians and the Kartvelebi
country: Shqiperia in native language.
in turkish (and soem sources borrowing from it) Arnavut (people),
Arnavutluk , from a local greek pronounciation of "Albania"
> Georgians, and their country Sakartvelo. Cerna Gora is universally known
Cerna Gora is just "Black Mountain" i.e. "Montenegro" in the slavic
language. for example in turkish, it is generally known as Karadag~
i.e. "Black Mountain".
> as Montenegro, Bha-rat is called by the Westerners India, Suomi >
I had seen bha:rat used in urdu (in Pakistan), but recently I heard
and hindu:sta:n
> Finland, Misr = Egypt, Zhon Guo = China. The Greeks call France Gallika
Zhon Guo is chinese. in other languages based on a dynasty (China from
Qin very common, first attested in Sogdian, 2nd cent. CE). in russian
Khitai (via eastern turkic) from the qyta*ny* people (mongolic) of the
Liao dynasty.
Tibet is non-native, from the old turko-mongol name (probably meaning
"highlands") via medieval perso-arabic sources.
> and Switzerland Helvetia; this latter name has even been adopted by
it's latin.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Recently we have witnessed the renaming of some countries like Dahomey
> becoming Benin, Congo = Zaire (now back to Republic of Congo !), Ceylon
once Upper Volta became Burkina Faso
once "the Sudanese Republic" became Mali
french Cote d'Ivoire was recently imposed on all languages.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:42:23 +0100, "Il Granduca"
> <paolox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Congo" is the name of two countries :
> >1) the one with Brazzaville as capital city;
> >2) the one with Kinshasa as capital city
> >But is it legal to have one name for two different countries?
>
> The official name of a country is rarely the same as the one used
> in less official contexts. Compare:
>
there are also official "short names" and offiical "formal names"
according to UN guidelines.
> Republic of Korea (a.k.a. South Korea)
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a.k.a. North Korea)
North and South Korea use different names for "Korea" in korean and fo
reunification purposes a name on which "Korea" is based.
> People's Republic of China
> Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan)
> Democratic Republic of Congo
> Republic of Congo
see my previous post.
>
> As for issues of legality, I don't know. International law is not
> something that has been universally accepted anyway. In any case, it's
> not very likely that two countries want to adopt the exact same
> official name, as you can see from the above examples.
>
> >>Burma = Myanmar of which it is a corruption
> >I'm not an expert of those languages. Are you saying that both "Myanmar" and
> >"Burma" have the same origin (in other words: it is the same name spelt
> >differently)?
>
> The area had been known for centuries as Myanma (in the Burmese
> langauge). During the Japanese occupation, the name Bama was adopted
> by Burmese nationalists. After the war, inside the country the name
> Myanma was again silently reintroduced.
> Some people feel that Bama only encompasses the Burmese ethnic group,
> while Myanma encompasses all the ethnic minorities as well
> (Mon, Karen, Chin, Palaung, etc.) Other people say the exact opposite
> is true.
see this post:
=================
Message-ID: <3B616A...@att.net>
From: "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Difficulties for Asians learnign English
References: <91c0d379.01072...@posting.google.com>
<3b5d88bd$0$3757$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
<m31yn4a...@lee.eti.hku.hk>
<3b5fc5e7$0$3756$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>
<i_W77.65$N4....@news.uchicago.edu>
<90EB6ED41lo...@134.18.241.18> <3B60D2...@att.net>
<3B610265...@CoastalFog.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:20:17 GMT
Mike Wright wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Chris Kuan wrote:
> >
> > > Here in Oz, we've had a large influx of Vietnamese (sparked by
> > > refugees). We seem
> > > to have developed a sub-category called "South-East Asian", which
> > > presumably
> > > means "Vietnamese and others". The others (I suppose) being
> > > Malaysian,
> > > Indonesian, Filipino, Cambodian, Myanmarese (what *is* the term?)
> > > and Thai.
> >
> > Burmese.
>
> But "Burmese" also refers to a specific ethnic group, doesn't it? If
> the country's name is no longer Burma, does it make sense to refer to
> Shan, Kachin, and others as "Burmese"? I would go for "Myanmartian".
"Burma" and "Myanmar" are from the word(s) in the Colloquial and
Literary varieties of the (diglossic) language respectively, so if one
of them is an ethnonym, then the other is too.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
=============
Yusuf B Gursey
: country: Shqiperia in native language.
Shqipera
: in turkish (and soem sources borrowing from it) Arnavut (people),
: Arnavutluk , from a local greek pronounciation of "Albania"
in arabic Morocco al-ma*gh*rib (also al-mu*gh*rib) "the (arab) occident"
formally al-mamlaka(t) al-ma*gh*ribiyya(t) "the Occidental Kingdom"
Morocco and others from Marakkash turkish Fas from Fa's (Fez) (different
dynasties centered on different cities being principle during the time of
naming)
Yusuf B Gursey
Madagascar changed names several tiems, at one point being "Malagasy
Republic"
Cambodia changed name several tiems, some merely nativizations, but for a
while Khmer Republic.
Somalia had a short name change in arabic (which has official status) from
Su:ma:liya: (for So:ma:liya:) to aS-Su:ma:l (for aS-So:ma:l ; aS- repr.
al-)
Charles A. Burge
On the other hand, Canada seems to have made it quite simple for everybody. :)
Charles
Yusuf B Gursey
: I ask again: when I pronounce the name "Armenian" (in fact, "Hai")
armen- is how they are attested first in old persian and greek sources.
hai may have been adopted later.
: how am I changing the Armenian heritage? Armenians are hardly
Yusuf B Gursey
: Locals speak local. We speak us.
sometimes there is a good reason for a name change.
for example, a country may be commonly known for one ethnic group, a more
neutral name would be preferable.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Somalia had a short name change in arabic (which has official status) from
: Su:ma:liya: (for So:ma:liya:) to aS-Su:ma:l (for aS-So:ma:l ; aS- repr.
: al-)
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, before adopting that name was briefly "the
Kingdom of Hejaz and Najd" (just after the Saudi dynasty of Najd defeated
the Hashimites of Hejaz).
Kingdom of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia (?) -> Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia -> Union of Serbia and Montenegro (Mar. 14, 2002)
I didn't go into name changes as result of independence or drastic
regime change:
the Ottoman Empire (also Turkey) -> Turkey
tu"rkiya was used in turkish only as a europeanism until the Ankara
government adopted it, tu"rkiya being replaced by current tu"rkiye (rare
until then) as the declaration of the republic approached (alif was
replaced by ha). I have heard some elder people say << tu"rkiya >>
(there was also the addition of the waw or plene type "turkish style"
ottoman script by the Ankara government for tu"rkiya and tu"rkiye)
colonial:
French Somaliland, Terr. of Afars and Issas -> Djibouti
Rhodesia, Rhodesia / Zimbabwe -> Zimbabwe
SW Africa -> Namibia
Nyasaland -> Malawi (IIRC)
Basutoland -> Lesotho
Bechuanaland -> Botswana
British Honduras -> Belize
Muscat & Oman -> Oman
Trucial States -> United Arab Emirates
Aden Protectorate, Federation of South Arabia -> Southern Yemen ->
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (more popularly remaining Southern
Yemen) {now merged with Yemen Arab Republic as Yemen (teh zrepublci of
Yemen)
Yusuf B Gursey
: Michel Desfayes <mdes...@omedia.ch> wrote in message news:<3E679590...@omedia.ch>...
:> Recently we have witnessed the renaming of some countries like Dahomey
:> becoming Benin, Congo = Zaire (now back to Republic of Congo !), Ceylon
: It's the Democratic Republic of the Congo (unless a very recent
: change). it was IIRC Republic of Congo, but the Republic of the Congo
: is Congo - Brazaville.
alternatively Dem. Rep. of the Congo is just Congo (or Congo - Kinshasa)
Rep. of the Congo is Congo Republic (or Congo - Brazaville)
Abbel Mihkel
I didn't mean "name". I meant "correct pronunciation of a name". (Look
at the subject line.)
I don't care if it's Burma or Myanmar--I'm equally disinterested in
finding the place on a map in either case.
My point was--I don't like when someone takes a trip there and says
after returning: "Hey, the Burmans (or Myanmarians??) pronounce the name
of their country xxyyzzffhh@@งง... You should too, because it's the
correct way. I can manage it now after two weeks practicing."
In my language things are pronounced the way they are written. If the
spelling is bizarre (like many strange names are), I prefer an
approximation based on THE SPELLING, not the local pronunciation,
because it's not the way things go in my language.
Officially, on the other hand, the local pronunciation is given
preference, and I can't understand how they haven't understood yet it's
quite an impossible demand. I'm a professional linguist and I can't
pronounce all those goddam things that are required. I can't learn
pronunciation rules for all the languages of the world. How could a
layman who doesn't know half the things I know?
Mihkel
Peter T. Daniels
> Kingdom of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia (?) -> Yugoslavia
In English it was the "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes"
(briefly).
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
: "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
the UN standard spelling is Myanmar , the "r" carried over into all
languages except for russian and I presume chinese, but unfortunately
including arabic.
: John.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Google gives 1 450 000 hits for "Burma", 3 210 000 for "Myanmar"; of these,
: 500 000 contain both. "Myanma" has 15 000, many of them official sites or
: news bulletins.
usually Myanma comes with Myanmar as a variant in the same site.
I wish they woudl get rid of that "r".
: John.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> In sci.lang John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote :
> : Google gives 1 450 000 hits for "Burma", 3 210 000 for "Myanmar"; of these,
> : 500 000 contain both. "Myanma" has 15 000, many of them official sites or
> : news bulletins.
>
> the UN standard spelling is Myanmar , the "r" carried over into all
> languages except for russian and I presume chinese, but unfortunately
> including arabic.
In Nagri Indakshari, I have a way to indicate a trailing r assimilated
into a vowel. The letter below (in UTF-8 Devanagari) is a Nagri letter
<a> [V] with two matras (diacritics) - one one top to turn the [V] into
[@] and one below to indicate a trailing [R]; thus, this letter spells
the last "er" in "farmer". Does anyone know how the last r is indicated
in Burmese script? Iis it a onsonantal r or is it that some kind of
diacritic on the last vowel "colors" it with an r?
अृॅ
Yusuf B Gursey
: I didn't mean "name". I meant "correct pronunciation of a name". (Look
: at the subject line.)
: I don't care if it's Burma or Myanmar--I'm equally disinterested in
: finding the place on a map in either case.
: My point was--I don't like when someone takes a trip there and says
: after returning: "Hey, the Burmans (or Myanmarians??) pronounce the name
both seem to be equally "correct" or equally incorrect for rhotic
speakers.
I don't think pronounciation is something the diplomats could do much
about. it is usually a matter of orthography.
in the case of Burma vs. Myanmar it is a matter of register, but the usage
in english is politicized.
regardless of what one thinks or feels, this is more a forum of analysis.
some romanizations or anglicizations may be based on ethnic, colonial or
or other political factors that the political structure of that country
finds undesirable. whetehr one agrees oiwth that is a dfferent matter.
I don't think anybody is insisting "pronounce it EXACTLY as the natives".
: of their country xxyyzzffhh@@§§... You should too, because it's the
Yusuf B Gursey
: ?????????
from my understanding, it is just a device, influenced by non-rhotic
english, to express a back vowel /a/, as apaprently the "r' in Burma is as
well.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> Kingdom of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia (?) -> Yugoslavia
: In English it was the "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes"
: (briefly).
yes, now that I remember it from stamps and satmp catalgues.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
: matin_l...@hotmail.com (matin) wrote in message news:<638e67d0.03022...@posting.google.com>...
:> There was a Czechoslovakia, and there are a Slovakia and... a "Czech
:> Republic". But we do not have to call France "French Republic", don't
:> we?
: My very inelegant usage is:
: the Czech Republic (formal)
: Czech (informal)
the official short form is just (the) Czech Republic (and equivalent in
all the languages of the UN, according to UN guidelines.
: as in.
: I haven't been much in Czech, just Prague.
: They went to Czech to go skiing.
: I'm not crazy about it but I've heard others use it as well.
: If I saw/heard more people using Czechia I would too, but til then ...
: -michael farris
Charles A. Burge
This may not be totally relevant, but I have a co-worker who is from Burma (and still a citizen
thereof). He refuses to call it Myanmar because he objects to the current government there.
Charles
Andreas Prilop
> On the other hand, Canada seems to have made it quite simple for everybody. :)
And what's this "CDN"? I don't get it.
--
Top posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >
> > the UN standard spelling is Myanmar , the "r" carried over into all
> > languages except for russian and I presume chinese, but unfortunately
> > including arabic.
> >
> > : John.
>
> This may not be totally relevant, but I have a co-worker who is from Burma
> (and still a citizen thereof). He refuses to call it Myanmar because he
> objects to the current government there.
>
yes, the use or disuse of "Myanmar" in english is politicized.
> Charles
M. Ranjit Mathews
> In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> :> the UN standard spelling is Myanmar , the "r" carried over into all
> :> languages except for russian and I presume chinese, but unfortunately
> :> including arabic.
>
> : In Nagri Indakshari, I have a way to indicate a trailing r assimilated
> : into a vowel. The letter below (in UTF-8 Devanagari) is a Nagri letter
> : <a> [V] with two matras (diacritics) - one one top to turn the [V] into
> : [@] and one below to indicate a trailing [R]; thus, this letter spells
> : the last "er" in "farmer". Does anyone know how the last r is indicated
> : in Burmese script? Iis it a onsonantal r or is it that some kind of
> : diacritic on the last vowel "colors" it with an r?
>
> english, to express a back vowel /a/, as apaprently the "r' in Burma is as
> well.
Ah, so that's why you regret the r in the Arabic spelling. 'ar' is
possibly a tonal spelling. In the Gwoyeu Romantzyh convention for
spelling Putonghua (Mandarin), "ar" means Pinyin a2 ([A] with a low
rising tone).
M. Ranjit Mathews
> This may not be totally relevant, but I have a co-worker who is from Burma
> (and still a citizen thereof).
Wonderful. i'd like to know how he pronounces Yangon. It used to be
spelt Rangoon, which leads me to suspect that the first consonant
sounds both like an R and a Y. The Burmese alphabet doesn't seem to
have a special letter for such a sound, so I'd like to also know which
letter is used for this.
If you feel up to it, that is.
> He refuses to call it Myanmar because he objects to the current government
> there.
Alas, the SLORC are not choirboys.
Dik T. Winter
> "Charles A. Burge" <hawaii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, Canada seems to have made it quite simple for everybody. :)
>
> And what's this "CDN"? I don't get it.
Canada DominioN or somesuch.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Ben Zimmer
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in <eSFga.254287$sf5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> :> In sci.lang John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote :
>
> :> : Google gives 1 450 000 hits for "Burma", 3 210 000 for "Myanmar"; of these,
> :> : 500 000 contain both. "Myanma" has 15 000, many of them official sites or
> :> : news bulletins.
> :>
> :> the UN standard spelling is Myanmar , the "r" carried over into all
> :> languages except for russian and I presume chinese, but unfortunately
> :> including arabic.
>
> : In Nagri Indakshari, I have a way to indicate a trailing r assimilated
> : into a vowel. The letter below (in UTF-8 Devanagari) is a Nagri letter
> : <a> [V] with two matras (diacritics) - one one top to turn the [V] into
> : [@] and one below to indicate a trailing [R]; thus, this letter spells
> : the last "er" in "farmer". Does anyone know how the last r is indicated
> : in Burmese script? Iis it a onsonantal r or is it that some kind of
> : diacritic on the last vowel "colors" it with an r?
>
> english, to express a back vowel /a/, as apaprently the "r' in Burma is as
> well.
The <ar> in "Myanmar" indicates not just backness but vowel length for
non-rhotic speakers (as with <ur> in "Burma"), since the British
pronunciations would presumably be [mj&nmA:] and [b@:m@] or [bV":m@].
(Here [A] is a low back unrounded vowel, equivalent to IPA script a, and
[V"] is a low-mid central unrounded vowel, equivalent to IPA reversed
epsilon.)
Compare this to other non-rhotic "pronunciation spellings" that baffle
most rhotic speakers:
<ar> for [A:] - "marm" (for "ma'am"), "barth" (for southern Eng. "bath")
<or> for [O:] - "Eeyore" (for "(h)ee(h)aw")
<er> or <ur> for [@:] or [V":] - "er(m)...", "Winnie ther Pooh", "lurve"
--Ben